Southeast Europe

political or any other kind of belief or opinion, national or social origin, affiliation to a
national minority, property, birth, or other status.” At the time of the Romanian
Government’s signing of the document, some members of the Romanian Government
held that the convention alone was sufficient to uphold the rights of minorities within
the country, despite the fact that under the terms of the agreement domestic legislation
must be adopted (Weber, 1998:205). The Romanian Government voted a decree that
stipulated punishment for discrimination only in August 2000. Unfortunately, it is still a
decree that the parliament has not ratified and transformed into a law.
Probably the most contentious international document signed by the Romanian
government, however, was the Recommendation 1201 of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe. Signed in 1993, certain articles from the document were
brought to the debate concerning the bilateral agreement between Hungary and
Romania. Politicians and others from Romania claimed that Articles 11 and 12 in
particular posed a threat to Romanian security, ignoring the protection of domestic
legislation. The terms of the document were finally drafted into the treaty with an
additional clause stating that, “The Contracting Parties agree that Recommendation
1201 does not refer to collective rights, nor does it impose on them the obligation to
grant to the concerned persons any right to a special status of territorial autonomy based
on ethnic origin” (Weber, 1998:208).
The Treaty of Mutual Understanding, Co-operation and Good Neighbourhood
between the Republic of Hungary and Romania is a comprehensive document
regarding the protection of national minorities, signed in autumn 1996, and ratified by
both countries in December 1996. The inclusion of Recommendation 1201 in the treaty
was combined with Article 20(2) of the Romanian Constitution. Articles 6 to 10 of the
former grant rights and effective remedies in cases of non-observance. As an example of
how this works in practice, one can look at Article 7(3) of the Recommendation which
states that, “In regions inhabited by a substantial number of persons belonging to a
national minority, they are entitled to use their mother tongue in their relations with
administrative authorities.” Article 119 of the Constitution that declares “public
administration in territorial-administrative units is based on the principle of local
autonomy and decentralisation of public services.” Therefore, Article 7 allows local
councils to decide for them what is meant by “substantial numbers” and may then
compel public authorities to use minority languages in cases where this is requested
(Weber, 1998:210). The same is true for the issue of bilingual signs, an issue that has
had a tendency to cause tension in the past, particularly in certain parts of Transylvania.
The sole case where this does not work is the use of minority languages in the courts.
This is due to the fact that the judicial system, unlike the system of administrative
bodies, is hierarchical, with the result that lower courts are not permitted to act on their
own initiative in the way that local councils may (Weber, 1998:211). Nevertheless, the
inclusion of Recommendation 1201 into the Treaty is important to note as it does take
precedence over domestic legislation according to Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
In addition to adopting new legislation, the Romanian government created the Council
for National Minorities, in order to fulfil its obligations under the European Convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Dianu, 1997:2). The Council may act in
the areas of, “legislative, administrative and financial problems referring to the exercise
of rights by persons belonging to national minorities on the preservation, development
and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity, as defined by
the Constitution of Romania, by the legislation in force, as well as by the international
44